Booker v. Dist. of Columbia Gov't

• Docket Number: Civil Action 19-2639 (RBW)
• Decision Date: 23 June 2023
• Parties: LEWIS BOOKER, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

1

LEWIS BOOKER, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-2639 (RBW)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The plaintiff, Lewis Booker, brings this civil action against the defendant, the District of Columbia Government (“the District”), asserting a claim of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a) (“Title VII”).^[1] See Complaint (“Compl”) ¶¶ 40-47, ECF No. 1. Currently pending before the Court is the Defendant District of Columbia's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Mot.” or the “District's motion”), ECF No. 29. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,^[2] the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the District's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[3]

The plaintiff “was hired as a Transportation Planner by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation ([‘]DDOT['])[,]” Def.'s Facts ¶ 1, “on December 10, 2000[,]” Pl.'s Facts ¶ 1; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 1.^[4] “In November 2015, [the p]laintiff was detailed from [the] DDOT's Policy, Planning and Sustainability Administration, later renamed the Planning and Sustainability Division ([‘]PSD[']), to [the] DDOT's Infrastructure Project Management Administration, later renamed the Infrastructure Project Management Division ([‘]IPMD[']).” Def.'s Facts ¶ 2. During his time with the IPMD from 2015 to 2018, the plaintiff

supported the Right of Way ([‘]ROW[']) Program, which assisted with [the] DDOT's acquisition of [ ] property . . . for use as part of the public right of way and [ ] also . . . review[ed] and revis[ed] the ROW Manual, which outlines policies and procedures for completing ROW acquisitions and transfers[.]

Id. ¶ 3. “In 2018, [the p]laintiff . . . ask[ed] that his detail with IPMD end and that he be moved to a different division within [the] DDOT.” Id. ¶ 4.

“On November 11, 2018, [the p]laintiff submitted an intake form with the Metropolitan Police Department's [(‘MPD') Equal Employment Opportunity (‘]EEO[')] Investigations Division[,]”^[5] Id. ¶ 36, initially naming DDOT supervisory employees “Ronald Williams [ ], Margaret Crane [ ], Ravindra Ganvir [ ], and Sam Zimbabwe” as individuals who had discriminated and retaliated against him, Pl.'s Facts ¶ 13; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 13. “On December 6, 2018, [the p]laintiff met with Renae Lee, an MPD investigator, and submitted a revised intake form in which he . . . [included] only [ ] Crane, a DDOT attorney, and Zimbabwe[,]” Def.'s Facts ¶ 37, “DDOT's Chief Project Delivery Officer,” Id. ¶ 6, “as named respondents[,]” Id. ¶ 37. Through this EEO intake form, the plaintiff “indicated that he was making a complaint of discrimination based on race, color, and personal appearance[,]” that he “had been discriminated against[,]” and that he had faced “retaliat[ion]” from the named respondents. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 12; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 12. Specifically, “[i]n the [s]tatement accompanying his EEO complaint, [the plaintiff] explained that he had previously filed a civil rights complaint against Zimbabwe, and that Zimbabwe should not be involved in personnel decisions involving [the plaintiff].” Pl.'s Facts ¶ 17; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 17. “On December 21, 2018, [Luisa] Nguyen, in her role as DDOT EEO Program Manager, emailed Ganvir and Williams to inform them that an EEO complaint has been filed implicating them both[,]” Pl.'s Facts ¶ 21; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 21, and subsequently, “[o]n or about January 17, 2019, Nguyen emailed Crane to alert [her] that [the plaintiff] had filed an EEO complaint against [her,]” Pl.'s Facts ¶ 23; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 23. Also, on January 17, 2019, the MPD investigator assigned to investigate the plaintiff's EEO complaint “issued [the p]laintiff an exit letter and a notification of his right to file a formal complaint with [the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (‘DC]OHR[')].” Def.'s Facts ¶ 38.

On December 10, 2018, during the time period in which the plaintiff was progressing through the MPD's EEO complaint process, “Zimbabwe . . . issued a memorandum reassigning [the p]laintiff from IPMD to PSD[,]” consistent with the plaintiff's request that he be transferred to a different DDOT division. Id. ¶ 6. In this new detail, the plaintiff “report[ed] to Anna Chamberlin as his supervisor.” Id. Between January 17-19, 2019, Ganvir, Williams, Crane, and Chamberlin were all involved-although, to varying extents-in an email exchange in which the plaintiff was discussed. See Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 24-26; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 24-26. On January 22, 2019, Chamberlin “noticed an apparent discrepancy in [the p]laintiff's reported time entry for a date when the District government had been closed due to inclement weather[,]” Def.'s Facts ¶ 9, and “emailed Anthony Wooten, [the] DDOT's snow supervisor, to ask if [the p]laintiff had worked snow duty during the government closure[,]” Id. ¶ 10. “After learning that Chamberlin had contacted Wooten, [the p]laintiff sent Chamberlin an email stating ‘[y]ou know the saying, “If you look for trouble[,] you'll find it[,]”'” Id. ¶ 11 (second alteration in original), a statement which Chamberlin “perceived . . . to be threatening[,]” Id. ¶ 12. The plaintiff “included Chamberl[]in's supervisor, Jim Sebastian, as a ‘carbon copy' recipient in the email.” Pl.'s Facts ¶ 27; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 27.

On February 8, 2019, the plaintiff and Williams, “a Supervisory Civil Engineer in IPMD[,]” Def.'s Facts ¶ 5, and the plaintiff's former supervisor, see id., “exchanged emails regarding [the p]laintiff's transfer of files out from the ROW Program folder on the IPMD share drive on [the] DDOT's server[,]” Id. ¶ 13. Ultimately, after the plaintiff “did not commit to transferring all the files back to the IPMD share drive folder [and] instead suggested having a meeting with Williams'[s] two supervisors and a mediator,” Id. ¶ 15, on February 12, 2019, the plaintiff

responded to Williams, stating: “I have deleted all of my files from the ROW Program folder as I will not allow anyone to receive credit for the hard work John []Duel, [the p]laintiff's former co-worker in the ROW unit[] and I performed for over [three-and-a-half] years. If you want to assume the role of the ROW Program coordinator for IPMD[-]related project[s,] then you can start your own repository of files[,]”

id. ¶ 16. “[The p]laintiff deleted files from the ROW Program folder on the IPMD share drive, including his proposed revisions to the Right of Way manual that he felt the agency should have adopted.” Id. ¶ 17.

Approximately a month and a half later, “[o]n March 28, 2019, [the] DDOT issued an Advanced Written Notice of [the p]laintiff's proposed removal.” Id. ¶ 19. Chamberlin's supervisor, Sebastian, “was the proposing official and signatory of the . . . Advanced Written Notice of Removal.” Id. ¶ 20. The notice cited three bases for the plaintiff's proposed removal:

(1) “Conduct prejudicial to the District of Columbia Government: Concealing, removing, mutilating, altering[,] or destroying government records required to be kept by statute, regulation, Mayor's Order, document hold or subpoena, or other similar requirement”; (2) “Failure/Refusal to Follow Instructions: Deliberate or malicious refusal to comply with rules, regulations, written procedures, or proper supervisory instructions”; and (3) “Conduct prejudicial to the District of Columbia Government: Assaulting, fighting, threatening, attempting to inflict or inflicting bodily harm while on District property, or while on duty.”

Id. ¶ 21. “The specification for Cause One detailed [the plaintiffs email correspondence with Williams in which he said that he had deleted ‘all of my files from the ROW Program folder[,]'” Id. ¶ 22; “[t]he specification for Cause Two detailed [the plaintiffs email correspondence with Williams in which he refused to restore all files to the IPMD share drive, culminating in his deletion of files[,]” Id. ¶ 23; and “[t]he specification for Cause Three detailed [the plaintiffs January 22, 2019 email to Chamberlin[,]” Id. ¶ 24. After considering the proposed removal and supporting documentation, “Karen Calmeise, [the] DDOT's assigned hearing officer, . . . issued a report and recommendation on May 17, 2019, recommending that the agency remove [the p]laintiff based on Causes One and Two.” Id. ¶ 26. Finally, “[o]n June 6, 2019, Dorinda Floyd, [the] DDOT's Chief Administrative Officer, issued a Notice of Final Decision for Proposed Removal removing [the p]laintiff from his position effective June 14, 2019[,]” Id. ¶ 27, “sustaining the p]laintiffs removal for Causes One and Two[,]” Id. ¶ 29, and “sustaining] Cause Three but f[inding] that a lesser penalty (a 14-day suspension) would have been more appropriate ‘had [Cause Three] occurred in isolation[,]'” Id. ¶ 30.

B. Procedural Background

On September 3, 2019, the plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case. See Compl. at 1. On December 13, 2019, the District filed a partial motion to dismiss, see Defendant District of Columbia's Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint at 1 ECF No. 8, which the Court granted on November 30, 2020, see Order at 10 (Nov. 30, 2020); supra note 1. Thereafter, the District filed its Answer to the Complaint on December 14, 2020, see Answer at 1, ECF No. 16, and the Court held an initial scheduling conference regarding the discovery process on January 26, 2021, see Order at 1 (Jan. 28, 2021), ECF No. 19. After the parties concluded discovery on January 13, 2022, see Minute (“Min.”) Order (Dec. 1, 2021), ECF No. 26-1,...